KIRSTEN SKOU - IMO 5424445
|More Of This Ship|
© Rick Vince
© Rick Vince
© Gerolf Drebes
|More Of: This Photographer - This Ship - This Ship By This Photographer|
Photo Comments (20)Comments sorting method :
|Rick Vince on Feb 09, 2021 11:03 (16 days ago)|
Moin Volker, haha, you 'deserved' it!
Have a good day, freundliche grüße,
|Rick Vince on Feb 09, 2021 11:00 (16 days ago)|
Thanks for that interesting info P.F. Kerr.
This is the first I have heard of a Port Line charter for her.
It may well be the answer.
As yet, I have not come across any slides of NZ. If I do, that will be additional evidence. I will notify on here, if I do.
Thanks once again for your research, much appreciated.
|volker1948 on Feb 09, 2021 09:12 (16 days ago)|
|I sowed the wind and reaped the storm!!|
|P.F. KERR on Feb 08, 2021 22:13 (17 days ago)|
Extracts from "Evening Star" newspaper, Dunedin, New Zealand. 21/4/1965:
Launched:11/9/1963. Went on trials:28/1/1964
Designed to carry 8,500 tons d.w. as a closed shelter decker, or 7,000 d.w tons open condition.
Gross tonnage: 6,457 closed or 4,259 open.
Length b.p.:118.9m. Breadth: 17.2m
Machinery: 6 cylinder B. and W. diesel.
Service speed:16 knots.
Cargo handling: 12 5-ton and 4 10-ton derricks. Two heavy lift derricks, one forward one aft, each handling 25 tons. All winches electrically operated.
Her radio equipment is powerful enough to reach Denmark from anywhere in the world.
"A Port Line charter has brought the vessel to New Zealand with general cargo, potash and basic slag, on her current voyage". (This may explain the funnel colours, which correspond to the Port Line).
"The master of the present Kirsten Skou, Captain E. Bantz visited New Zealand as an officer in the former Kirsten Skou, more than a decade ago".
The former "KIRSTEN SKOU" sank after a collision with the German "KARPFANGER" (5,719 gt) in fog, off Dover, U.K. on 29/3/1962.
Note: I don't remember Ove Skou ships in anything other than the company's funnel colours in NZ.
|Rick Vince on Feb 08, 2021 20:52 (17 days ago)|
Well spotted P.F. Kerr.
I have previously discussed this (of another, similar image of Kirsten) with Bent Mikkelsen, one of, if not Denmark's top, shipping expert.
We discussed all known options, and still could not find a definitive answer.
Bent said that some Skou ships did time charter work for CSAV (Compagnie Sud Americano de Vapores) of Chile and Lauritzen.
Without a full-on shot of the funnel, we may never know.
I still have an awful lot of slides to view and scan, so the answer may be revealed in due course.
The slides are all mixed up, so I am not tackling them in any chronological order.
|P.F. KERR on Feb 08, 2021 20:30 (17 days ago)|
|The red on the funnel tells me she's chartered to some other company.|
|Rick Vince on Feb 08, 2021 17:51 (17 days ago)|
Yes Pieter, I blame Volker!!!
|pieter melissen on Feb 08, 2021 17:43 (17 days ago)|
|Thanks again Rick, and all of this because of the first comment to this photograph...which proved to mean something rather different from what you would expect after superficial reading.|
|Rick Vince on Feb 08, 2021 17:41 (17 days ago)|
|Marcin, great links! Thanks.|
|Rick Vince on Feb 08, 2021 17:40 (17 days ago)|
.... and I still didn't accurately answer your question Pieter!
There are precious few 'general cargo ships' around today. There is no definitive answer, but as shipping companies are operated to squeeze every last cent of revenue from their ships, the overall answer has to be yes, a reduction in time for crew to go ashore.
The busiest time of all for ship and crew, is often in port.
|Rick Vince on Feb 08, 2021 17:30 (17 days ago)|
Pieter, time allowance for crew shore leave was never a priority.
The ship's schedule was always paramount. As for any form of commercial transport, if it isn't moving, it is isn't earning.
Shore leave was allowed IF you had the time. It was never a right.
Clearly, in the past some general cargo ships spent a lot of time in ports, and it followed that crew had the opportunity to go ashore.
Equally clearly is the fact that as ships became larger, terminals moved to the outskirts - no better example than Europort- and crews reduced, ISPS was introduced, putting more work on the already reduced crews. i.e. permanent gangway watch in port. No walking within ports - authorized transport only.
Terminals (and indeed, countries such as the USA) who are uninterested in assisting crews to go ashore).
So, it has generally become more and more difficult for crews to spend any meaningful time ashore.
There will always be exception to the rule.
Extended port stays due to loading/discharging issues.
Machinery issues. Layovers and so on.
I recall that years ago, in your ECT terminal, no shore leave is allowed in any case. There is no crew transport available in the terminal and not even telephones on the quayside for crew to use. (Ok things have changed in that regard, and most crew have smartphones). But it showed the unwillingness of Port management to allow crew ashore. They, the crew, are just a burden to any terminal.
Also, I have many stories regarding ship's agents being totally disinterested in the welfare of crew passing through their hands.
And now, Covid too!
Who would be a seaman today?
|Marcin Trojanowski on Feb 08, 2021 17:27 (17 days ago)|
As usually in case of ships built by Nakskov Skibsværft, there are many detailed pictures here:
|pieter melissen on Feb 08, 2021 16:27 (17 days ago)|
|Rick, that is what has changed, the number of people, but as I suggested in my first comment for the crews of general cargo ships, would the port time have been reduced as well to allow crew to go on shore for pleasure? You may be able to tell that from first hand experience.|
|Rick Vince on Feb 08, 2021 15:06 (17 days ago)|
Hi Pieter, tanker crews also changed in line with modern practices, automation, and better reliability (generally speaking) with all equipment on a ship. Paint and paintwork application too.
In 1980, for example, crews on Shell tankers were quite literally halved.
At that time I was predominantly working on 32,000 dwt product tankers, with the occasional VLCC thrown in for good measure.
Negotiations between company and unions (and who knows else?) resulted in our ship's standard complements being reduced from 44 to 22/23 overnight.
Obviously, ships built with accommodation for the former number, became 'ghost' ships in the accommodation.
I could go on; but as you know, after bunker costs, crewing is the second most expensive item for operating a ship.
C'est la vie.
|pieter melissen on Feb 08, 2021 14:23 (17 days ago)|
|Volker, would that also be a valid statement for the crews of tankers? Their logistics did not change much over the past 50 years or so.|
|WUKA54 on Feb 08, 2021 14:06 (17 days ago)|
Today's sailors probably can't even name the painting of the Rigging and Tooling. It is certainly not known what is hidden under the tarpaulins that cover the cargo hold hatches. Steel, transverse beams (I don't know the English name), thick oak boards, layers of heavy tarpaulin, steel ropes, straps, shackles, wedges ... I remember that the preparation of a large general cargo (five holds, loading booms and hatches covered as in the photo) sometimes it took more than 24 hours to go to sea. The same goes for preparing the ship for port operations after mooring.
This explains the reason why the deck crew of a cargo ship with a load capacity of 10,000DWT was sometimes even 15-16 people - not counting officers, assistants, and apprentices.
The good old days . We spent several weeks in the ports (especially in Asian or African ports. There was time for everything: work, visiting exotic places and all the entertainment that we didn't boast about to our families.
Thanks for sharing.
Best wishes .
|Pica on Feb 08, 2021 13:43 (17 days ago)|
...have a look at the hatchcovers: opening and closing them wasn´t always fun....
|volker1948 on Feb 08, 2021 08:57 (17 days ago)|
|Hello Pieter.That,s exactly what I mean.We had better days than the sailors today.Best wishes to you my friend and stay healthy.Volker|
|pieter melissen on Feb 08, 2021 08:33 (17 days ago)|
|Volker did you say that because in those times ships actually went to a city port in stead of a terminal and stayed there sufficient days for the crew to go onshore and have some fun?|
|volker1948 on Feb 08, 2021 08:23 (17 days ago)|
|When ships were ships!!|
This photo has been shown 1,107 times since it was added to the site.